According to the UK Telegraph, researchers in Britain have taken stem cells from a patient’s own body fat to stimulate the regrowth of tissue damaged by multiple sclerosis.

Last year experts suggested that stem cell therapy could be a “cure” for MS within the next 15 years.

Patients’ symptoms were still improving up to a year after the treatment, the new study shows.

One, a 50-year-old man, who had suffered more than 600 painful seizures in the three years before treatment has not had a single one since the infusion of his own cells.

Another patient’s ability to walk, run and even cycle are still improving 10 months after the therapy.

Apparently there are a couple of studies underway, and the second one is also reporting excellent results:

Earlier this year another study in 21 patients injected with their own bone marrow stem cells, found that 81 per cent saw significant improvements to their disability.

The successful treatments derived from adult stem cell therapy is somewhere between 70 and 80; there has yet to be one reported successful therapy from embryonic stem cell research, despite years of trying in the United States and internationally, with both private funding and taxpayer funding.

While adult stem cell therapy uses a patent’s own stem cells gathered from places such as fat tissue, nasal tissue, dental tissue, testicles and more, embronic stem cell research destroys a human embryo during the harvesting process. Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research also has problems with tissue rejection (as seen with organ transplants) and the generation of tumors in the recipient, as seen in an unfortunate Israeli boy who received fetal stem cell therapy.

Science is continually proving that not only is the moral high ground better ethically, it is also more successful than methods that sacrifice innocent human life in the process.

It does seem adult stem cells offer great possibilities for medical science. Thousands of scientists all over the world are engaged in this exciting relatively new field. The research is painstaking, exacting, time-consuming and follows rigid scientific methodology.

I wonder if these brilliant scientists are the same materialistic, evolutionists who you claim are completely wrong about accepting all the many many different fields of science that support evolution and are out to push their 'materialistic' views to the world. Is their belief that stem cells will offer mankind great cures a religion as you feel their belief in evolution is ?

One big trade secret about evolutionary “science” is that it ultimately does nothing for any real branch of science. It really just feeds and supports itself. It doesn't even affect the study of antibiotic resistance, largely because what that involves isn't really evolution. Nor do real branches of science really support evolution; evidence is interpretred with the assumption that evolution is already known to be true. Other interpretations are not weighed based on how they fit the evidence; they are treated as if they don't exist.

“…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all.”– Dr. Marc Kirchner, chairman of the Dept. of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School

“I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century… I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research… Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”– Dr. Philip Skell, Professor of Chemistry, Penn State University

“The final result of all my researches and discussions is that the theory of evolution should be discarded in its entirety, because it always leads to extreme contradictions and confusing consequences when tested against the empirical results of research…. [T]he theory of evolution is a severe obstacle for biological research. As many examples show, it actually prevents the drawing of logical conclusions from even one set of experimental material. Because everything must be bent to fit this speculative theory, an exact biology cannot develop.”– Dr. Heribert Nilsson, The Synthetic Formation of Kinds

To the best of my knowledge, none of the men quoted above are creationists or even ID proponents.

I understand what you are saying, but that wasn't my question. The cell biologists and scientists that are doing this incredible research on adult stem cells must use rigorous, scientific methodology to achieve what they have. I would venture to say that most if not all of these same researchers support evolution and the science behind it.

Is it then your contention that the scientific methodologic mind that allows them to do such fantastic research in one area( stem cells) altogether becomes faulty and fuzzy when it comes to their belief in evolution and the science that supports it. Please dont say it's because they lose all perspective and have some sort of agenda to push their materialistic worldview.

I think, for the most part, that the scientists who are really accomplishing things (like adult stem cell research) are not heavily involved in evolutionism. Even if they see things that go against evolutionism, they tend to think it's already proven by research in other areas and thus don't really question it.

Evolutionism is associated with real science more in the public mind than in real, practical research, and I think the above quotes reflect that.